Welcome to DBSTalk

Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!

I am very aware of that, meanwhile 150,000 people will not get benefits (and local TV - gee what's more important) today because he is the ONLY ONE in Congress holding it up. It's only a 1 month extension. Give the one month and argue about the rest of the year later. He's creating terrible uncertainty for hundreds of thousands of people as well as the states who have to constantly change their payment rules.

Or the rest of congress is irresponsibly trying to allocate additional money that they don't have, when in fact, there is ready money left over from the "stimulus" that can be used immediately. But, hey lets do whatever, just so you can keep watching TV.

Or the rest of congress is irresponsibly trying to allocate additional money that they don't have, when in fact, there is ready money left over from the "stimulus" that can be used immediately. But, hey lets do whatever, just so you can keep watching TV.

No, so "I" can pay my rent. Can't watch TV if I have no place to watch it.

OK, let's say you decide to go into business.....Now imagine that someone wants to come into your exclusive territory...Oh, and that other franchisee (for want of a better term) has way more resources than you and can put out a flashier, more inviting product.

How would you feel?

I appreciate the explanation and I do understand why these regulations are in place, but I see it as classic "Too big to fail" thinking. The OTA broadcasters are dinosaurs that are being propped up by the Federal Government. Technology has almost made them irrelevant. Local news and weather are the only things going for them and there are less and less eyes watching it - which means less revenue from local advertizing. It's kind of like the automobile put the horse and buggy dealers out of business. Cellular phones are taking out land line phone subscriptions and the Internet has taken away a big chunk of the US Post Office's business (although they really are too big to fail )

FYI, NPS said they have no plans to shut off distants as they report the same thing as posted above, legislation will eventually be passed. How they are still being provided I do not know, just glad they are.

According to John Eggerton's most recent dispatch, the reason everyone is still providing distant signals is that they've been assured by Congressional staff that the eventual bill (or another extension?) will include language to "retroactively make the interim delivery legal." Meanwhile, the bill or something is apparently back in the pipeline.

According to John Eggerton's most recent dispatch, the reason everyone is still providing distant signals is that they've been assured by Congressional staff that the eventual bill (or another extension?) will include language to "retroactively make the interim delivery legal." Meanwhile, the bill or something is apparently back in the pipeline.

They have 30 days to respond. I doubt they will respond before that 30 days and my guess is this will be finalized within that time. The real loop hole was between feb and the transition date. Some affiliates went digital early meaning there is no way you could get an analog signal and they could not deny your waiver. Well the transition has passed and all local stations are now digital so you missed the window as did I. Just because they denied you once done mean you shouldnt try again. I kept submittint them until I got them all passed except for CBS. Its worth trying. Do it yourself from the website here: http://www.directv.c...80022#h:583.455

OK, let's say you decide to go into business. You choose a product that gives you an exclusive territory. No one else can sell your product in that market. <snip>

But therein lies the rub, eh? Isn't the very granting of exclusivity contrary to the best interests of the consumer?

Free competition is the bedrock of a free enterprise capitalist system. Sure, every seller of a product wants to maneuver to get an edge over their (potential) competition, and in some cases they even get in bed with the government to prevent competition. This seldom serves the consumer.

Want proof? You need only look at the airlines or telephone companies. They used to be regulated and the prices of those products today in actual numeric dollars (not time-value dollars) is in most cases lower than in the days of regulation. Consider inflation and prices today are pennies on the dollar. Competition lowers prices.

I own a liquor store. Sure, I'd like to be the only guy in town who can sell the products I carry, but I'm not. Sure, I'd like to have the government step in and prevent another liquor store from opening within, oh, say, about 200 miles of my store, but I can't.

If they did, I'd make even more money. I'd be able to curtail my hours, reduce my staff, raise prices and reduce my overhead — all to save costs and increase profit, secure in the knowlege that everyone has to buy from me.

Instead, I have to compete with both the small mom-'n-pop neighborhood stores and the big megopolies on price and service, and I do. In fact, I do such a good job that my store has been voted as the best in town. And I don't have access to any product or service that isn't also available all over town. Instead, I'm forced to simply do it better!

Sorry, Newshawk, I vigorously disagree with your underlying premise. If there ever was a day when exclusivity in any communications endeavor was appropriate, it is long past.

I own a liquor store. Sure, I'd like to be the only guy in town who can sell the products I carry, but I'm not. Sure, I'd like to have the government step in and prevent another liquor store from opening within, oh, say, about 200 miles of my store, but I can't.

If they did, I'd make even more money. I'd be able to curtail my hours, reduce my staff, raise prices and reduce my overhead — all to save costs and increase profit, secure in the knowlege that everyone has to buy from me.

Instead, I have to compete with both the small mom-'n-pop neighborhood stores and the big megopolies on price and service, and I do.

Analogies seldom are accurate when comparing retail sales with a service such as broadcasting.

Assume the "Star Trek" transporter were invented and the consumer could freely visit any liquor store in the country by pushing a button. Can you "do it better" than the biggest liquor store in NYC or LA, and survive? Because that's the equivalent of bringing NYC network channels into Podunk.

If a city had two or three NBC stations, neither would do well enough in the ratings to make money.

Analogies seldom are accurate when comparing retail sales with a service such as broadcasting.

Assume the "Star Trek" transporter were invented and the consumer could freely visit any liquor store in the country by pushing a button. Can you "do it better" than the biggest liquor store in NYC or LA, and survive? Because that's the equivalent of bringing NYC network channels into Podunk.

If a city had two or three NBC stations, neither would do well enough in the ratings to make money.

I like your Star Trek transporter analogy. If there were such a thing it would affect transportation throughout the world and change everything. Your last statement makes my point that local broadcasters are outdated and irrelevant. In today’s digital age you only need one NBC station. A national one. Local broadcasters could still exist, but not affiliated with a network. They would have to gain revenue from local programming, or dare I say it, government subsidies (PBS). Your analogy is pretty much what happened to computer stores. There used to be a mom-and-pop computer store in every town. Then the mail-order builders like Gateway & Dell caught hold and many of the mom-and-pops could not compete. After a while even the brick-and-mortar Gateway stores had to close, not profitable enough against small profit margined, low overhead mail-order companies (Apple stores are still around though). Now you can’t even buy computer parts other than at Best Buy or the basic stuff at the local Wal-Mart. We are still taxed to pay for computers and broadband in government schools, which give no benefit to local private businesses. The private sector has to survive on profit; the public sector can always raise taxes.

If a city had two or three NBC stations, neither would do well enough in the ratings to make money.

You could say the same about gas stations at a corner or radio stations using similar formats. Competition benefits the consumer and hurts profits compared to non-competitive situations.

In particular, if there were two NBC stations, they'd have to work to differentiate themselves. Maybe they'd use different transmission methods (OTA, cable-only, mobile DVB). Maybe they'd concentrate on different areas within the market. At some point, they might decide to merge, or one might switch to a different network. It would be much closer to a free market, where products and services evolve to meet demand.

But it's pretty pointless to talk about it. The system we have is the way it is. No one with enough clout wants to change local market exclusivity for broadcast content. There's a better chance of the internet revolutionizing how we get TV than of us convincing Congress to change rules in a way that doesn't benefit any broadcasting industry.

The latest John Eggerton dispatch: He talks with House Communications Subcommittee chairman Rick Boucher (D-Va.), who says that "(t)he satellite reauthorization bill should be signed, sealed and delivered to the president's desk by week's end".

Here's an exclusive, though unsurprising, bit of info I just verified. STELA is reported to include the true grandfathered Superstations in its reauthorization. So there's one less thing for us all to worry about.

I didn't really see anything on D* for DMA's that don't have locals. So D* already has DNS feeds. Does that mean there is no emphasis for them to add the remaining missing markets?. Also what will happen with the significantly viewed stations? As for the grandfathered part, well we can only hope to be so lucky.

D* and E* should just be allowed to turn all the locals on for everyone, at least as far as the spot beams will go. They would have to trim the edges of the spot beams so they don't bounce in and out, but other than that, you should be allowed to receive whatever your equipment can, but only your DMA can be remapped to 2-69 on the satellite boxes. The whole local affiliate exclusivity is ridiculous.

Frankly, I'm happy with what I have now; antenna for PBS, ABC, and NBC, waivers for CBS and FOX. Actually, I would do NBC if I had a shot since the NFL games on the local affiliate suffer from break up whenever the camera pans quickly. But, it seems that later this year locals will come to my area. I keep abreast of it by visiting the Local HD Info thread for my area at AVSForum. I was going to suggest Josh do the same, so here's the index thread where you can try to narrow down to your location or the nearest one. We're being told that DISH Network has set up equipment at a local transmission facility to pick up over-the-air broadcasts. Binghamton, the city mine is paired with along with Corning in that thread, has been told that in June or thereabouts DirecTV will offer them locals. My issue is whether they'll just pass the CBS feed that's being transmitted here, a 480i sub-channel feed by the local ABC affiliate, or if they'll spring for the HD feed they provide for Time-Warner Cable. If it's the former, I'll have major issues.

I'd be happy with "every station in your DMA" (even though DMAs are arbitrary) plus "every station that reaches anywhere in your zip code with their predicted signal" (including former analog Grade B coverage that is allegedly replicated in digital).

Very few people want a station from thousands of miles away. Most want the stations they could get on cable. The closest affiliates. The only expansion needed would be for those who would still be missing an affiliate after the two rules above.

The early days of satellite spoiled people with out of market stations delivered without permission to viewers across the nation. There would be no locals or distants at all if it were not for the permissive rules put in place by congress. The only drawback is that satellite rules are too restrictive on out of market signals. (Signals that a cable system can be forced to carry cannot be delivered to the same customer via satellite.) Get rid of the gap and I believe most viewers will be happy.

There will always be those who want everything from everywhere ... but the majority would be served by just giving satellite customers what locals they get from cable.